4.  The applicant was born in 1944.
5.  The applicant worked as a judge in a District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) since 1976. Since the 1980s she has suffered from backache which has prevented her from working long hours and sometimes made it impossible for her to work. The supervising court, the Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), questioned on several occasions her ability to continue to work. In 1991 and 1994 the Appeal Court concluded, however, that the applicant’s condition was not serious enough to justify her dismissal.
6.  In 2000 the issue was again brought up. On 6 June the senior judge of the District Court informed the Appeal Court about the applicant’s situation. On 19 June the Appeal Court requested the applicant to submit a medical certificate.
7.  On 8 September 2000 the applicant submitted a certificate which showed that she was capable of performing her judicial functions. On 18 September she submitted several other medical certificates to the court showing her fitness for work. On 16 October the Appeal Court decided to carry out an inspection of the District Court. The inspection was carried out on 10 November without the applicant’s knowledge. The head of personnel of the Appeal Court went to the District Court to interview the applicant’s colleagues about her situation. The colleagues and supervisors were given a questionnaire which they had to complete in writing. They were apparently also shown statistics on the court’s workload, the division of work and the applicant’s absences.
8.  On 21 December 2000 the applicant sent the Appeal Court the results of her medical examinations as well as a further medical opinion drawn up by her doctor. She requested that her case be decided on the basis of these materials together with the medical opinions which she had previously submitted.
9.  On 3 January 2001 the Appeal Court prepared a report on the inspection of the District Court carried out on 10 November 2000. According to that report, the applicant’s share of the work had been minimal in comparison with the other judges’ workload. The report concluded that the medical examinations conducted so far did not give a correct picture of the applicant’s state of health and capacity to work, and that the conditions justifying a further medical examination under the Civil Servants Act were therefore fulfilled. On 9 March 2001 the Appeal Court decided that the case could not be decided on the basis of the existing materials. It thus requested the applicant to undergo a thorough and objective medical examination at the State’s expense.
10.  On 22 March 2001 the President of the Appeal Court, the head of personnel and the applicant’s counsel met and decided to give the applicant an opportunity to express her point of view on the request for a medical examination. The applicant stated in her reply of 20 April that there were no grounds for making her undergo a further examination since she had already provided several medical certificates on her state of health.
11.  On 4 May 2001 the Appeal Court found that the applicant’s reply did not give cause for changing the court’s decision of 9 March 2001. The court requested a new medical examination and, in order to avoid any lack of objectivity, sent the complete file to the doctor responsible for occupational health care. The doctor contacted the State Treasury (Valtiokonttori, Statskontoret) in order to ascertain the kind of medical examination needed to obtain a disability pension. As a result, neuropsychological examinations were carried out in May and June 2002. They showed that the applicant was fit to work as a judge. Both the doctor responsible for occupational health care and the State Treasury concluded, on 30 October 2002 and in January 2003 respectively, that, on the basis of all the medical examinations, the applicant was fit to work. These conclusions were sent to the Appeal Court on 5 February 2003.
12.  On 3 March 2003, on the State Treasury’s initiative, a meeting was called in the District Court in order to discuss possibilities for improving the applicant’s ability to work. The applicant did not attend the meeting and informed the meeting through her counsel that any measures to be implemented would require her consent. On 10 March and 23 April, respectively, the Appeal Court requested the applicant and the State Treasury to submit in writing the results of all the various medical examinations. On 25 March 2003 and 4 June, respectively, both the applicant and the State Treasury refused to provide this information, basing their refusal on domestic law provisions regulating the protection of privacy.
13.  On 17 June 2003 the applicant requested that the administrative proceedings in the Appeal Court be accelerated. On 27 June the applicant was summoned to an oral hearing to be held on 26 September. On 1 and 5 September the applicant’s counsel asked the court to indicate the material that would be used against the applicant and the issues on which she would be questioned. On 3 September a summary of the case was sent to the applicant. On 16 September the applicant informed the court that she wanted 14 witnesses and experts to be heard under oath at the hearing. On 19 September the plenary court, presided by its president, refused to hear all the applicant’s witnesses. It reminded her that the case was an administrative one and that it could be decided on the basis of the written materials alone. Since the case concerned the applicant personally, she was given the possibility to be heard in person. The hearing of witnesses was unnecessary as many of them had already submitted written statements. Moreover, the court was familiar with the relevant law as well as the circumstances obtaining in the District Court in question.
14.  The applicant complained about the refusal to hear her witnesses to the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman), who declined to examine her complaint since the case was still pending before the Appeal Court.
15.  On 22 September 2003 the applicant sought the disqualification from the proceedings of the president of the Appeal Court, one of the judges and the head of personnel. At the oral hearing on 26 September the plenary court, under the presidency of another judge, noted that it had already been decided on 19 September that the head of personnel would not participate in the deliberations on the case. It rejected the applicant’s request for the disqualification of the president and one of the judges.
16.  At the oral hearing on 26 September 2003, the Appeal Court made a short summary of unanswered issues that it considered relevant, including the question as to why more extensive examination had not been carried out of the applicant’s fitness for work. The court decided immediately after the oral hearing to order a more extensive examination of the applicant’s fitness for work. This request was also directed to the State Treasury. On 15 October the applicant wrote to the court, maintaining that she had already undergone all the medical examinations which the occupational health care doctor and the State Treasury had deemed necessary.
17.  On 21 October 2003 the court wrote to the State Treasury requesting it to ensure that the applicant underwent an additional examination. On 13 January 2004 the applicant requested the court to correct its decision of 26 September 2003, claiming that she had already been given an additional examination. On 16 January 2004 the court rejected this request, stating that no such examination had as yet been carried out of her health seen from the perspective of her fitness for work and her right to receive a disability pension. On 19 January 2004 the State Treasury informed the court that the applicant had not applied for rehabilitation and that it could not conduct the medical examinations without her consent. However, in her letters of 10 and 17 February 2004 to the court, the applicant stated that, even though she had not applied for rehabilitation, she had informed the State Treasury on 23 December 2003 that she was ready to undergo an additional examination.
18.  On 9 and 10 June 2004 respectively, a specialist and the occupational health care doctor concluded that the applicant was fit to work as a judge. On 22 June the applicant requested that the case be decided as soon as possible. Prior to this, the applicant had on several occasions asked for the proceedings to be accelerated.
19.  On 23 August 2004 the Appeal Court found in its decision that since the late 1980s the applicant had been absent on many occasions because of chronic backache and, for that reason, her output had been very modest. There was no doubt that she had become unable to carry out the duties of a district court judge due to her illness. This overall assessment was not influenced by the fact that her condition could not be satisfactorily determined given her failure to undergo detailed medical examinations on her health. As the applicant had refused to give up her post, the Appeal Court dismissed her with immediate effect. The decision indicated that no appeal was possible.
20.  The applicant lodged an appeal and a request for the reopening of the case with the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen). On 8 September 2004 the court annulled the Appeal Court’s decision in so far as it indicated that no appeal was possible and set a deadline for the submission of an appeal. The court found that, according to Article 21 of the Constitution of Finland, everyone had the right to have his or her case dealt with appropriately by a legally competent court of law or other authority, as well as to have a decision pertaining to his or her rights or obligations reviewed by a court of law or other independent organ responsible for the administration of justice. As a decision to dismiss a person necessarily affected that person’s rights and obligations, it followed that there should have been a possibility to challenge that decision in a court of law. The fact that no appeal was possible in this kind of case would therefore be in contradiction with the Constitution.
21.  On 8 October the applicant submitted her appeal against the Appeal Court’s decision in its entirety. She complained, inter alia, that the Appeal Court had failed to consider a number of medical opinions and to call some of her witnesses and that it had based its decision on interviews with her colleagues which had not been given under oath.
22.  On 29 November 2004 the Supreme Court held a preparatory session at which the applicant requested that several witnesses and experts be heard. On 3 December the court informed the applicant that it refused to hear eight of her twelve witnesses and experts since it was not necessary to hear them. It added that it intended to hear two witnesses of its own motion. On 16 December the applicant requested three of her witnesses be heard so as to rebut the evidence of the court’s own witnesses. On 20 December this request was rejected by the court on the same grounds as those indicated in the decision of 3 December. The court pointed out that the normal procedural rules for civil and criminal cases did not apply to her case since it was an administrative procedure. For this reason the case could be examined on the basis of the written materials and the court was responsible for obtaining evidence to the extent necessary to decide the case.
23.  On 4 January 2005 the Supreme Court obtained statistical information from the District Court, which was received by the applicant the following day. She asked for a postponement of the case on 6 January, but the court did not respond to this request.
24.  The oral hearing took place on 10 and 12 January 2005. On 15 March 2005 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s appeal. It found, on the same grounds as the Appeal Court, that the applicant was no longer fit for work and that this state of affairs was permanent.
25.  On 27 July 2005 the applicant was granted a disability pension, backdated to 1 September 2004.